Help!=Recording Microphones

[DesolationAngel]

A good way to start thinking about sound is to think about it everywhere you go... if you find yourself in a concrete stairwell, stand and clap and listen to the sound and look all around you to see why you hear it that way. If you find yourself at IKEA, go to the carpet section, go up that giant rack of hanging rugs, walk right in and start talking... hear how it sounds, think about why it sounds that way. If you're in a restaurant notice how the crowd sounds and why that might be. Clean painted walls? High ceilings? Think about the 'dead' sound inside of a library, between the bookshelves. And the reverberating, echoing, hugeness when you're walking inside of a building with a huge atrium and marble floors. Watch and listen to how sound designers use sound to enhance the visuals that you see in movies... If two people are standing talking in a field the sound is very different to if they were talking inside of a church. Even in a tight close up of two people the sound will give you a clue as to their location.

As a photographer I learned very early in life to explore everything about light and the way it interacts with the world. I've been trying to do the same thing with sound over the past few years. They aren't so different; some materials absorb sound (and light), some materials reflect light (and sound), and some materials change sound (and light).

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by jim1960

Close micing will reduce the effects of a bad room but you'll be trading one problem for the problems that rick-slo described.

Regarding things that make a difference... in truth, everything makes a difference. Some more than others, some more correctable than others. Prior to treatment, I made many attempts to get good tracks via close micing. The results were very mixed and the effort very frustrating. I had no idea how much moving around I did while playing ...even from a sitting position. As rick-slo said, just little movement can really alter the sound.

My own philosophy is that I don't want to struggle to be able to record good tracks. With my room treated, I'm able to dial in the sound I want much more easily than when my room was untreated.

If you're handy, and would rather spend time than money, bass traps aren't too hard to build. This video shows how they're made, although if I were making them, I'd make a simpler box. Real Traps sells a stand for their product but that doesn't look all that difficult to build either.

Cool, well as you have it...I am a bit of a handy man...I like making things, it is one of my professions working with wood and steel..so I will check out this video..and see if it is plausible.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by DesolationAngel

A good way to start thinking about sound is to think about it everywhere you go... if you find yourself in a concrete stairwell, stand and clap and listen to the sound and look all around you to see why you hear it that way. If you find yourself at IKEA, go to the carpet section, go up that giant rack of hanging rugs, walk right in and start talking... hear how it sounds, think about why it sounds that way. If you're in a restaurant notice how the crowd sounds and why that might be. Clean painted walls? High ceilings? Think about the 'dead' sound inside of a library, between the bookshelves. And the reverberating, echoing, hugeness when you're walking inside of a building with a huge atrium and marble floors. Watch and listen to how sound designers use sound to enhance the visuals that you see in movies... If two people are standing talking in a field the sound is very different to if they were talking inside of a church. Even in a tight close up of two people the sound will give you a clue as to their location.

As a photographer I learned very early in life to explore everything about light and the way it interacts with the world. I've been trying to do the same thing with sound over the past few years. They aren't so different; some materials absorb sound (and light), some materials reflect light (and sound), and some materials change sound (and light).

Awesome my new friend! I was a commercial photographer...also back in the day(80's). In fact, my specialty was commercial Guitar Photography, producing catalogs for Schector, Tom Anderson, and Michael Tobias.
So, now you are on to one of my favorite subjects...the Inverse square law of light. I have always felt that there was something very similar to it in sound. What do you think? For those of you who are not familiar with the Inverse square law...it is a simple statement that light dissipates at an inverse square ratio. So lets say someone is standing 10 feet from you in a dark room and you flash them...You would naturally think that the light at 20 feet away from you, would be half as much..But this is not the case, there will be one quarter as much light on the back wall as there is on the person you are flashing.
So, I am dying to hear, if there are similar laws with sound?

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

Awesome my new friend! I was a commercial photographer...also back in the day(80's). In fact, my specialty was commercial Guitar Photography, producing catalogs for Schector, Tom Anderson, and Michael Tobias.
So, now you are on to one of my favorite subjects...the Inverse square law of light. I have always felt that there was something very similar to it in sound. What do you think? For those of you who are not familiar with the Inverse square law...it is a simple statement that light dissipates at an inverse square ratio. So lets say someone is standing 10 feet from you in a dark room and you flash them...You would naturally think that the light at 20 feet away from you, would be half as much..But this is not the case, there will be one quarter as much light on the back wall as there is on the person you are flashing.
So, I am dying to hear, if there are similar laws with sound?

Yep, just account for different velocities, absorption coefficients, and diffraction differences.

[DesolationAngel]

There are so many similarities; we talk of the quality of light and the quality of sound... And, it's funny, when I think of post-production processes in photography I often want to describe them in ways that equates to tools used in audio production. And it's not a reach to think of them that way; we use cameras and lights and lenses and post production in order to effectively convey something we want to express... music? Just the same. That's why I have different sounding guitars for different conversations...

[DesolationAngel]

Thought I'd throw this in to the mix... see what I did there?

I took the solo guitar track, that I posted, earlier, with the sweeping phase alignment, and just put some drums, bass (DI'ed), piano and organ around it. I had the acoustic guitar panned to centre–which I might not have done had this had a vocal–but I have piano panned one way and organ pads panned the other. Bass down the middle and drums spread. You can hear the phase change at about the 24 second mark (as before) and you can hear how the two different sounds 'sit' in the mix. I haven't really done much to the stereo track I uploaded last night except for adding a breath of air to make it sit a little better. There is some stuff on the 2 bus though (compressors, bit of EQ, tape sat etc). There is also a little phasing/flanging on the acoustic track but I'm not sure where that's coming from, we'll put it down to multiple compressions maybe. Anyway, the point was, I didn't spend a great deal of time on this, it's just here for illustration; an acoustic guitar track which might be deemed 'not a good sound' can work just fine in a mix.

[AcousticDreams]

Very interesting and helpful recording showing how the sound changes at 24 seconds.
Again, I am a novice..and sometimes grasping a concept is a bit harder. So does phase alignment..only make a difference in sound...when a stereo mix is put in mono? Or does the phase alignment make a difference to the Stereo mix as well?

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

Very interesting and helpful recording showing how the sound changes at 24 seconds.
Again, I am a novice..and sometimes grasping a concept is a bit harder. So does phase alignment..only make a difference in sound...when a stereo mix is put in mono? Or does the phase alignment make a difference to the Stereo mix as well?

Changing the phase of 1 channel relative to the other in a stereo recording will change the tone somewhat because the sound from speakers interacts to some extent. Will it be a good change or a bad change? Only you can decide by listening. Unless there's a serious problem to start with, the effect is usually pretty subtle, and again, you can only align at certain frequencies, and shifting the signal to align at one frequency makes others more misaligned. So it's really a tonal shift in most cases. Unless you plan to mix to mono, you're probably better off making tonal changes by using EQ.

[AcousticDreams]

[QUOTE=Doug Young;4630330]Not really. There's a lot more to mic placement than phase. Mic placement is really important, but it's not that hard. I have a pretty standard spaced pair placement - mics about 15-18 inches apart, about 12 inches from the guitar, about even with the soundhole. I sit down, watch the balance meters as I move side to side by an inch or two, and play. Works fine with multiple guitars, etc. Getting a balanced sound means the mics are going to be very close to the same distance from the guitar, which also means they'll be in as much in phase as possible. That's about all there is to it.

Hey Doug, Been thinking a lot about your basic 12 inches away and 15 to 18 inches apart -rough standard. While I have not had time to try it yet...It makes perfect sense mathematically!
I sat down today and measured how far my ears were from the top of the sound hole on the guitar...depending on how far I lean over...it is anywhere from 12 to 15 inches.
Then I stood in front of a mirror...and kind of estimated the angle of my ears and where they landed in front of the guitar...and again... it is somewhere around 18 inch mark.
So I say, what you practice makes great mathematical sense. It is very close to what we as a player might hear. so even though the mics are in front of the guitar..they are relatively, the same type distance spacing & from our ears, as what we hear the guitar. Thanks to you, I had never thought of it in that way.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

so even though the mics are in front of the guitar..they are relatively, the same type distance spacing & from our ears, as what we hear the guitar. Thanks to you, I had never thought of it in that way.

I can see what you're saying, tho I've not approached it from that standpoint, I've just experimented endlessly and that's what's ended up working for me. I find that works well for me regardless of guitars, for the most part, and works well with different mics, too. I do vary the distance and spacing a bit now and then, just depending on taste. What I've not been happy with is the 12th fret/lower bout setup that you find on most websites. It usually sounds unbalanced to me, even when the levels are matched. But I'm always up for trying new positions, this is just a fallback that I know works for me. I also like MS. I just leave the mics set up most of the time, so I can sit down, punch record and go.

There is a mic placement that's actually based on the distance between your ears: ORTF, where the mics are placed 17cm apart, the average width of a human head, and angled outward 110 degrees. I used that on my first CD, and it can work well. You can come very close to the same sound using MS with less work to get the setup right.

[rick-slo]

[QUOTE=Knives&Guitars;4631684]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Not really. There's a lot more to mic placement than phase. Mic placement is really important, but it's not that hard. I have a pretty standard spaced pair placement - mics about 15-18 inches apart, about 12 inches from the guitar, about even with the soundhole. I sit down, watch the balance meters as I move side to side by an inch or two, and play. Works fine with multiple guitars, etc. Getting a balanced sound means the mics are going to be very close to the same distance from the guitar, which also means they'll be in as much in phase as possible. That's about all there is to it.

Hey Doug, Been thinking a lot about your basic 12 inches away and 15 to 18 inches apart -rough standard. While I have not had time to try it yet...It makes perfect sense mathematically!
I sat down today and measured how far my ears were from the top of the sound hole on the guitar...depending on how far I lean over...it is anywhere from 12 to 15 inches.
Then I stood in front of a mirror...and kind of estimated the angle of my ears and where they landed in front of the guitar...and again... it is somewhere around 18 inch mark.
So I say, what you practice makes great mathematical sense. It is very close to what we as a player might hear. so even though the mics are in front of the guitar..they are relatively, the same type distance spacing & from our ears, as what we hear the guitar. Thanks to you, I had never thought of it in that way.

A reasonable starting point for spaced pairs but any given set of mike positions might work for one recording (certain guitar, tune, location in the room) and fail miserably on another.

Wear a set of good headphones. Check out various mike positions listening live. Think you have a good one then record the tune (or part of it) and listen back. Try a bit of tweaking (mainly reverb). If you don't like it try setting up the mikes again. Etc.

I got a good recording with the following mike set up on one tune. Did not get anything I liked much with it later on with other recordings. So many variables.

[Mixerman]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

That makes perfect sense, but only if the listener is one-eared.

Although many instruments might be considered mono sources, the sound generated from different areas of an acoustic instrument can, and do, vary greatly. What we try to accomplish with stereo miking is to re-create the same diffuse sound field that we would hear as a listener. The resultant effect can be manipulated using all the usual techniques ranging from mic selection and placement all the way through the manipulation of resulting wav files in a DAW.

Yes, because a mono signal isn't sounding in a 3 dimensional room and bouncing around in a way that you can hear it out of both ears.

What we hear is often as much a result of WHERE (the acoustic environment) we are playing as much as WHAT we are playing. To not consider the ramifications of what happens to an instrument's sound between the point where it is created and where it enters microphone(s) is treading a rather elitist path.

Anyone making the statement that a guitar can only be considered as a mono source must be walking around with a finger stuck in one ear. (IMHO)

A vocal is a mono signal, usually placed in the middle of the stereo field. Do you stick your finger in your ear for that too? What happens when everything in the mix drops out but the vocal? Do you stick your finger in your ear at that dramatic moment?

I'll share the full excerpt that was quoted here, and then two others, and then everyone who reads this can decide for themselves what's best for them and their art.

From Zen and the Art of Recording: "There is nothing I find more annoying than two mics on an acoustic guitar. I find it baffling as to why anyone would want to put two mics on a mono source point that isn’t fully stationary, especially for the stated goal of a “stereo” acoustic guitar.

Two microphones in close proximity to a rather compact collection point for stereo capture makes absolutely no sense. Remember, you need time differentials in order to properly record a stereo signal. Drums take up a large swath of real estate, and so when you stereo mic the drums, you have all the time differentials that you need to create a coherent stereo image. An acoustic guitar isn’t large enough to offer a significant time differential for a phase-coherent image, and so the guitar will tend to wrap around your head within the stereo field.

Any time the listener can notice what you’ve done in a recording or mix, you’re greatly reducing the effectiveness of the production. If you want stereo guitars, you’re far better off recording two mono guitar passes, as they will be absolutely phase coherent within the stereo field, and will offer you the full width of the stereo spectrum.

I’m not a fan of using two mics on acoustic guitar combined in mono either. Many recordists put a mic on the bridge and another on the 12th fret (which is in the middle of the neck). I would argue that if you like the sound of both positions, then just place one mic between those two locations. If the two mics aren’t coherent in stereo, they certainly aren’t coherent in mono.

It’s pretty rare for me to use two acoustic mics in a mix. They almost always have obvious issues when combined, and I don’t understand how anyone could record with two mics when they are quite obviously negatively interacting.

There’s a big difference between placing two mics on a stationary source compared to a shifting one. An amplifier sits on the floor motionless, and once you lock down your mics on the amp, the phase relationship doesn’t change. An acoustic guitar either sits on a player’s lap or hangs in front of her torso. Even a slight turn in position will change how the sound reaches the two mics. That will result in obvious comb filtering.

An acoustic guitar can be a powerful rhythmic and harmonic force in a production, and you weaken its effectiveness when you attempt to record it with two microphones. I’ve literally recorded hundreds of acoustic guitars with just a single point of collection. There’s absolutely no reason to complicate matters, especially if you’re not a Designated Recordist.

If you really want an acoustic guitar to appear stereo in the production, you can place a mic in the room, giving you the kind of time differential necessary to accomplish a stereo image. This may or may not be useful depending on how much is going on in the production. Obviously, the room mic won’t sound nearly as immediate as the close mic, and the room could be swallowed up quickly in a track that also includes distorted electrics."

From Zen and the Art of Producing: "The strength of the stereo field comes from the panning of mono sources. Not the combination of stereo ones. Even keyboards are often best placed as a mono source within the mix, especially if they’re not the most important part of the song. A piano that fills the entire stereo field makes sense if it’s featured, but if it’s a guitar-centric track, there’s no reason to give the piano such importance. You’re better off placing it as a mono part within the stereo field, and possibly even hard-panning it, as long as it’s not fighting a guitar on the same side."

From Zen and the Art of Mixing: "Lastly, I’ve never heard a single acoustic guitar that sounded good recorded in stereo. Resist the urge to spread two close mics placed on one acoustic guitar across the stereo field, even if the tracks were delivered with this intention. The phase coherency issues alone should be enough to prevent you from doing this. Remember, you never want people to notice the recording, and a single acoustic in stereo is going to wrap itself around the listener’s head, among other potential problems. Besides, it’s not even stereo. It’s just out of phase. If you really think the guitar sounds best with a blend of two mics, by all means mix them together. Just be sure to combine them as a mono source in your stereo field."

You are free to disagree. But please don't act as if there's no such thing as a mono source, and that this equates to sticking your finger in your ear. That's absurd.

Enjoy,

Mixerman

[rick-slo]

The more quotes I read from "Zen and the Art of Recording" the more I think the author does not know what the h*** he is taking about when it comes to stereo recording a guitar (and various other instruments naturally). Anyway the best evidence is in the recordings themselves.

[Mixerman]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

The more quotes I read from "Zen and the Art of Recording" the more I think the author does not know what the h*** he is taking about when it comes to stereo recording a guitar (and various other instruments naturally). Anyway the best evidence is in the recordings themselves.

Because it's not like I have a discography that you can use to compare and contrast with the advice.

Enjoy,

Mixerman

[DesolationAngel]

I've tried really hard to think of acoustic guitar as a stereo source (mostly since this thread began and since I remembered what Mixerman wrote)... and I just can't. When I'm listening to myself play, I don't hear stereo. I certainly don't hear stereo in the way that I hear when I record acoustic guitar in stereo (my guitar doesn't 'wrap itself around my head'). Now, that's not to say that I don't like it or don't want to do it sometimes, myself, especially when it's solo acoustic guitar. I just don't hear it that way. I might hear some reverberation. I might hear some echo. But mostly, I just hear a delightful guitar tone coming from the guitar.

When I'm mixing other instruments I most certainly don't want stereo guitar unless I'm trying to make it sound like two guitarists are playing in two different positions in the stereo field (like, sometimes, with electric guitar, for that classic twin-axe attack type of thing).

There are things in my line of work (photography) that are most certainly not 'real', which is not to say that I won't use them sometimes for effect but they don't represent reality... I feel the same way about stereo acoustic guitar.